Challenge - WW2 British Carrier Platoon

Challenge - WW2 British Carrier Platoon

Source Bayonet Strength website Carrier Platoon - the Bren carrier was an attempt to provide a fully tracked, lightly armoured vehicle, which could transport a Bren gun team across exposed ground and set up a firing position to support the advance of the Rifle Platoons.

In its earliest form the Platoon operated ten Bren carriers, with a HQ and three Sections of three carriers each. Platoon HQ had a single machine crewed by the Platoon Commander, driver-mechanic and batman. Each of the three Sections had three carriers, with an NCO, rifleman and driver-mechanic in each vehicle. The first carrier was commanded by a Sergeant, the other two each by Corporals. Each carrier mounted a Bren gun, and one in each Section also had an anti-tank rifle.

This unit in each British Infantry battalion was used as a firebrigade and/or to provide additional support to an attack - the challenge is what could you do within this structure to increase its suppressive firepower - off the top of my head - Vickers MMG instead of Brens, a Besa instead of Bren (belt fed), twin Vickers K, 20mm cannons (early delivery of Polsten), 15mm Besa, 0.5" Vickers - any other suggestions. I do realize that the 'real' carrier platoon could dismount their Brens but in this AH challenge there is a willingness to sacrifice this flexibility for additional firepower

Earliest version of Sd.Kfz.10 (Sd.Kfz.250 APC was a variant of Sd.Kfz.10 tractor) had an internal lay out somewhat similar to the Bren Carrier. German Army moved engine to the front to allow more space for cargo and/or weapons.

British Army could adopt a similar design change for the Bren Carrier. That would allow space to mimic variants similar to Sd.Kfz.250 APC.

Typical infantry version. Forward firing 7.92mm machinegun.

Recon vehicle with turret mounted 20mm cannon plus machinegun. One of the more common variants.

75mm howitzer. Recon vehicle in heavy weapons platoon.

Other variants included 81mm mortar carrier and 3.7cm flak. A few had 5cm AT gun but I think those were field conversions.

The Australians managed to put a 2 pounder anti-tank gun on modified carriers.

Or without modification I would think you could tow a 2 pounder.

This would help especially early in the war when the British had a lot of light tanks along with carriers in the cavalry regiments but the biggest gun they had were .50 cal machine guns and anti-tank rifles. Having either a mounted or towed 2 pounder would have greatly strengthened their anti-tank abilities

You don't need both light tanks and armed APCs as their combat capability is similar. Consequently German Panzer II production ended and less expensive Sd.Kfz.250 APC assumed the tracked vehicle recon mission.

Same applies to Britain. If they have plenty of light tanks they don't need Bren weapon carriers.

This would help especially early in the war when the British had a lot of light tanks along with carriers in the cavalry regiments but the biggest gun they had were .50 cal machine guns and anti-tank rifles. Having either a mounted or towed 2 pounder would have greatly strengthened their anti-tank abilities

The Australian built weapons version had the engine moved to the front left position, and in addition to the 2pdr T/At version there was also a 3" mortar carrier that had a fully rotating mortar.

The 2pdr could indeed be towed by a carrier, and often was.

And to address the original post, the Carrier Platoon was regularly used to hump the MMGs and 3" mortars of the MG and Mortar Pls around the battle field.

Whilst the 2pdr/mortar idea are good don't want to blur the roles of teams who already do those roles albeit would use universal carriers wherever possible.
I was thinking more about beefing up the carrier platoon with some more suppressive capability including smoke dischargers and belt fed rather than slower rpm magazine fed or with something that may reach out further.
I suspect you could get a 3.7" mtn how on the back of the Aussie ones. I have seen a picture of one with a smith gun which is effectively a direct fire 3" mortar.

If they wanted a light tank platoon, they'd have got proper light tanks. The carrier platoon is meant as a multi-purpose element - close recce, light APC, ammo carrier, and limited MG fire support. It isn't meant to be an assault gun platoon. Anything much more than an LMG would compromise those other tasks. Replacing the Bren with a .303 Browning modified for ground use with a heavier barrel and lower rate of fire might be an idea, but probably not worth the bother. Do note that carriers did transport Vickers Guns in the division MG battalion and they were already being used as mortar carriers in the infantry battalion mortar platoon as well as being used by the pioneer platoon.

By 1942, a troop of six two pounders towed by trucks was introduced to the infantry divison recce regiment and a platoon of eight guns to infantry battalions. Adding one earlier might not have been a bad idea, but I don't think they had enough to distribute them to recce and infantry until then. The BEF even had to borrow some French 265 mm AT guns because they didn’t have enough two pounders to fill out the establishment. They were deployed in divisional AT regiments at that time. By the time they did get enough two pounders that they could think of getting an ad hoc light assault gun/TD for recce units, they had light tanks and armoured cars with 37 mm and two pounder guns to use instead.

As for using them as tow vehicles for two pounders, that's certainly quite possible. By 1944, the recce and infantry AT elements had been upgunned to six pounders towed by carriers. They could have used carriers to tow the two pounders, and for all I know some units might have, but the trucks they did use seem to have done the job well enough. There was, as noted, an SP two pounder on a carrier chassis, but I suspect a towed gun was more useful most of the time and by the time they got it working, the two pounder was about to be replaced by the six pounder. I wonder if the Australians did it and the other fire support variants because they hadn't got enough Matildas and Grants yet?

Dave, the Australian gun carriers were developed to move weapons through thick jungle where you couldn't get even M3 lights. Rather than have the weapons demountable they just went with them permanently mounted on the carriers because it was easier that way.

Larrikin22 wrote:Dave, the Australian gun carriers were developed to move weapons through thick jungle where you couldn't get even M3 lights. Rather than have the weapons demountable they just went with them permanently mounted on the carriers because it was easier that way.

OK, that sounds reasonable. It's rather a response to a special situation, though. I shouldn't think they'd have been as useful in North Africa or Europe where they could use tanks for that role.

It's interesting, though, that when Australians needed fire support in jungle country in Vietnam, they used something a little larger than a Universal Carrier.

I shouldn't think they'd have been as useful in North Africa or Europe where they could use tanks for that role.

The British had 308 tanks in France when the Battle for France began, only 23 Matilda II had two pounder guns. All the rest had .50 cal machines at best

The cavalry regiments were the most mobile units in the British Army in France and they only had light tanks armed with .50 cal machine guns and carriers with anti-tank rifles and they were overrun since they could not stop German tanks. That is why it might have been a good idea to put at least some of the two pounder guns either towed or mounted with the cavalry.

You might argue that stopping tanks was not the job of the cavalry regiments but on the other hand that is the job they got stuck with and could not perform.

By the time they fought in North Africa they had cruiser tanks with 2 pounder so it not as high a priority but it could still be useful especially since they later are pointed out used the carrier to tow the 2 pounder

The Australian carrier variants didn't come about until a couple years later. In 1940, they didn't have enough two pounders for the AT regiments let alone enough to convert into half-assed assault guns. What the recce regiments could have used were recce vehicles designed to have a two pounder gun and coax MG in a turret, like the later Humber and Daimler armoured cars, and the army tank regiments needed up-to-date tanks instead of the Matilda I.

The cavalry regiments were the most mobile units in the British Army in
France and they only had light tanks armed with .50 cal machine guns and
carriers with anti-tank rifles and they were overrun since they could
not stop German tanks.

Keep in mind too that the cavalry regiments were recce regiments, not tank regiments. They weren't supposed to fight it out with tanks. Their German counterparts were armed with rifle caliber machine guns or light cannon as well. For that matter, most German tanks were the 7.9 mm armed Pzkw. I and the 2 cm armed Pzkw.II. The cavalry regiments in 1940 were probably better able to handle 1940 panzers than their 1944 counterparts could handle Pzkw IVH and Panthers.

Getz wrote:Hang on a sec, what about all the cruiser tanks like the A9s, A10s and A13s? All used in France - all armed with 2 pdr guns.

They were still in England when the Battle of France started. Some of the 1st Armored Division cruisers went to France after the battle started but they went in without much of their artillery or infantry and did not meet up with the BEF.

The cavalry regiments and the infantry tank brigades were the only tanks in the BEF

DaveAAA says Keep in mind too that the cavalry regiments were recce regiments, not tank regiments.

Yes, but they were given anti-tank weapons, the carriers had anti-tank rifles, the light tanks had .50 cal machine guns, (and yes some with 15mm gun, though I don't know what units had them). The problem was that they were not effective anti-tank weapons and the tracked cavalry were the most likely units to run into German tanks they should have had something better.

I know some theory says that recon units should not fight but there are times they must fight and a regiment is a little large to be trying to hide in the weeds. And as shown in France in 1940 they were used as tanks without the firepower to act as tanks

Hence the reason most German recon vehicles were armed with a high velocity 20mm autocannon. Problem is Bren Carrier was small and even the larger version was lacking in cargo/weapons space.

Why did British army standardize on such a small combat vehicle? Make Bren Carrier a couple road wheels longer and it would be much more useful for carrying troops, weapons, radio equipment, forward observer equipment, ambulance equipment etc.

Point to remember (now that we have drift of onto German vehicles) is the Bren/Universal carrier was used by the standard British Infantry Battalion in the British Infantry Divisions. The Carrier platoon was part of the establishment of the ordinary British Infantry Bn.

What tracked and/or armoured vehicles did the German Infantry division of 1939/1940 have? Either in its Infantry Battalions, Regiment or Recce Unit?(Note - standard German Infantry Division not a Panzer or Mot Infantry Division.)

When production started to catch up with demand standard Heer infantry divisions received tracked Steyr RSO artillery tractors to replace artillery horse teams. On a good day they might have a StuG battalion attached for fire support and/or a Marder battalion attached for SP AT support. That's about it for standard Heer infantry right up to end of the war as it was impossible to provide 150+ infantry divisions with organic armored vehicles. If British Army fielded 150+ infantry divisions they would have the same problem.

(and yes some with 15mm gun, though I don't know what units had them).

Evidently, you didn't bother to read my link. That information is there.

the tracked cavalry were the most likely units to run into German tanks they should have had something better

You mean like the third of German tank units that were armed with 7.9 mm MG's only? Indeed, most of their recce elements had MG's rather than 2 cm guns. Certainly, the BEF recce units were no worse off than their 1944 equivalents which faced Panthers with two pounder armed Daimler armoured cars and MG armed scout cars and carriers. The real issues were that the tank units that should have been equipped with Matilda II's still had Matilda I's and in any case, had too few tanks of any kind. That wasn't by choice, but because that's all they had.

a regiment is a little large to be trying to hide in the weeds.

Actually, that's not correct. Recce regiments still operate that way and do so quite successfully.